If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Because it's easier to stand up tomuskets and cannons than drone strikes, black hawk helicopters, and scud missiles. It's not a relevant example anymore...

It depends on which side the Military is on. You presume all the Military would side with the government when American history proves that point isn't always so when you have deeply divided social issues.

Well if we have a tyrant, it's because they have the military behind them. You don't become a tyrant without a way to hold your power. You can't assume a scenario where a tyrant has taken hold of the U.S. and the military has been weakened. That's not a plausible scenario. Of course, we're talking about a tyrant seizing control of the U.S., so plausibility went out the window a few pages back...

I never said it wouldnt be a big deal. It would be a massive deal. And damn near impossible to enforce.

My point isnt to say the founding fathers didnt say a militia was needed. My point is that times have changed and its not really a consideration anymore. It has happened historically, but there is no precedent set for going against a technologically advanced government and military with a bunch of overweight people, most of which have no stomach for the type of things theyd need to do, and accomplishing anything meaningful. Its just not gonna happen. You cant compare a revolution 100 years ago to one in America. The government in America has the capability to sever communication and hit vital targets of a resistance with ease. You may be able to last along time by just sporadically fighting, but you arent going to accomplish much.

Which is why the founders never intended for us to have a standing military. The well regulated militia part referred to the states' own individual militias. For example:

Originally Posted by James Madison

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Also:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

James Madison actually wrote The Constitution, by the way.

Then there is this.

Originally Posted by George Washington

I am persuaded, and as fully convinced as I am of any one fact that has happened, that our liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their defence is left to any but a permanent standing army; I mean, one to exist during the war. Nor would the expense, incident to the support of such a body of troops, as would be competent to almost every exigency, far exceed that, which is daily incurred by calling in succor, and new enlistments, which, when effected, are not attended with any good consequences. Men, who have been free and subject to no control, cannot be reduced to order in an instant; and the privileges and exemptions they claim and will have influence the conduct of others; and the aid derived from them is nearly counterbalanced by the disorder, irregularity, and confusion they occasion.

Lastly, a couple of quotes from my favorite founder.

Originally Posted by Patrick Henry

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Originally Posted by Patrick Henry

Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?

Because it's easier to stand up tomuskets and cannons than drone strikes, black hawk helicopters, and scud missiles. It's not a relevant example anymore...

That's only true if you go make a bad assumption in this hypothetical no one in the military helps or joins and there and no stingers, anti-tank weapons, etc. find themselves into the hands of revolutionaries even when there are tyrants that only came to power because of military support as you later stated. Not to mention as with other recent asymmetric conflicts there is no outside support. Won't smuggle in as much as drugs are along our vast expanse borders with military pulled in from around the world and now stationed at the borders...but that also means that they aren't used fighting revolutionaries. Also as another balance to the military presence at borders, large numbers of small arms won't have to be part of what needs to be smuggled in as in most cases.